Two months ago, I wrote a blogpost about the puerile employment listings I came across during last year’s job hunt. A number of people were surprised that employers continue to look for coding “ninjas”, “jedis”, “wizards”, and so forth.

By way of response, I started logging the more effusive job titles that passed through my RSS feed.

I thought you might be interested in seeing the kinds of people the tech industry is looking for. Needless to say, there’s plenty of hyperbole here to be critical of.

Such as…

  • Agile Tester and Support Enthusiast - 100% Remote! at ORCAS, Inc. (Eugene, OR)
  • Android wonderchild at Appstrakt (Antwerpen, Belgie)
  • Astounding ColdFusion/Node.js developer at Clevertech (New York, NY)
  • Awesome Dev Ops Wanted -100% Remote at Roch Systems (Reston, VA)
  • Back-end Developer to rule the world with APP (iOS, Android & Webapp) at MIWI (Amsterdam, Netherlands)
  • Black Belt / Scrum Master - Global Advanced Analytics - Location Frankfurt at ING (Amsterdam, Netherlands)
  • Data-Obsessed Engineer at Periscope (San Francisco, CA)
  • Director of Apple Awesomeness (iOS Lead Developer) at ChartSpan Medical Technologies (Greenville, SC)
  • Expert iOS Engineer (Medium-Senior level) at the binary family & The Beautiful Weather Corporation (Berlin, Germany)
  • Extraordinary Angular / Hybrid Mobile Developer at Clevertech (New York, NY)
  • GUI Expert on a trading platform-Senior/Lead Technologist | Full Stack | Java | at Fortis Capital Management (New York, NY)
  • Incredible node.js Leader at Clevertech (New York, NY)
  • iOS ninja to work with the hotest tech startup in London at S(u)ave (London, UK)
  • Looking for Ninja SQL Server Engineer to revolutionize mobile payments at Merchant Warehouse (Boston, MA)
  • Looking for Top-Notch PHP / Yii Framework developers for Remote Work at Plexisoft Inc. (Boston, MA)
  • MSSQL Database Developer and Web Analytics Guru at Scholarly iQ (Helotes, TX)
  • PHP Web Developer (Middleweight) at BREAD (London, UK)
  • PHP / Symfony2 developing genius at Appstrakt (Antwerpen, Belgie)
  • Passionate Ruby Developer at Clevertech (New York, NY)
  • Python Hero Makes Families' Lives Better @ Well Funded Startup at Slide (London, UK)
  • SUPERSTAR .NET DEVELOPER - (C#, MVC, Agile) - Talented Team at viagogo Group (London, UK)
  • Seeking passionate UI developers at BLT+ (Los Angeles, CA)
  • Senior Front-End Guru - Angular expert needed. Work by the beach! at Mavice (Santa Monica, CA)
  • Talented Software Engineer at Amazon (Detroit, MI)
  • The Wizard of Ruby at White Inc. (Dubai, United Arab Emirates)
  • Unique Role Available for a Human Senior C# ASP.Net Software Engineer at Screenfeed (Saint Louis Park, MN)
  • WANTED: Android Developer to Rule the World at MIWI (Amsterdam, Netherlands)
  • WANTED: Back-end Developer to Rule the World (iOS, Android & Webapp) at MIWI (Amsterdam, Netherlands)
  • Windows 8 guru at Appstrakt (Antwerpen, Belgie)

Every time I venture into the job market, I’m shocked and more than a little insulted by the job titles on offer.

Let’s be clear. I am a professional software engineer focusing on user interface design and development.

I am not a Ninja or a Jedi. Nor am I a Rockstar or a Guru or a Wizard. I am neither an Animal, a Unicorn, nor a Unicorn Tamer.

And yet, those are words I’ve seen employers choose when posting job openings in my field.

“Sure”, you say, “but those are just metaphors. What they really want are the best coders they can get.”

By way of reply, I ask you to consider the primary attribute of a person who would respond to such an ad. While confidence is usually considered a positive trait, someone who thinks of themselves as a ninjajedirockstarguruwizard clearly lacks the perspective and balance that comes with an equal portion of humility. Whatever the term, employers who use such superlatives are communicating that the primary trait they are looking for is arrogance.

“They’re just looking for energetic, motivated, go-getter types,” you counter. “And is arrogance really a bad trait for a coder?”

Absolutely!

First, let’s dispel the myth that arrogance (or even confidence) is correlated with competence; it isn’t. That’s a simple association fallacy. While confidence can be the outcome of competence, confidence can just as easily be a symptom of delusions of grandeur. And I know plenty of workers who, despite their obvious competence, struggle with their self-confidence.

With arrogance comes a disdain for others which easily hardens to contempt. With arrogance comes technical hubris and the belief that anything done by other employees (and certainly other companies) is inherently flawed and inferior. If you’ve been around the software industry for any time at all, you will have seen countless examples of NIH Syndrome (Not Invented Here). Arrogance is the most pervasive threat to any business process that is based on teamwork, knowledge sharing, and mutual respect.

When I see a developer exhibit arrogant behavior, it’s usually because they lack the perspective that comes from real-world experience; they haven’t been in the industry long enough to be confronted with their own mistakes and realize their fallibility, nor to appreciate the ingenuity and expertise of other practitioners. If I’m really looking for the best coder I can find, I’m going to hire someone who has made their share of mistakes, acknowledged them, and been willing to learn from them and improve their skills by asking questions of others.

As you might imagine, I don’t consider myself a ninjajedirockstarguruwizard. Having successfully derived my livelihood from software engineering for the past thirty years, I have a pretty accurate understanding of my strengths, weaknesses, and the value I can add in any given situation. I do not hold the arrogant self-opinion these employers are looking for, nor do I want to work with colleagues who do; so as soon as I see such superlatives in a job listing, I simply delete it, unread, and move on.

There are additional reasons why I immediately reject such listings. By putting so much emphasis on the search for ninjajedirockstarguruwizards, employers are revealing some ugly things about their internal culture.

First, the company is exhibiting as much arrogance as the people they hope to hire. They believe that the company will (of course!) be compellingly attractive to the best coders in the industry. They think the best and brightest will be satisfied with the corporate culture, working environment, compensation, and growth opportunities that they provide. Ironically, once you look behind the curtain, you’ll find such companies rarely live up to their inflated self-opinion.

Second, the company devalues women. Immature titles like Ninja, Jedi, Rockstar, Wizard, and Guru generally don’t appeal very much to educated, professional women, who have struggled to be taken seriously even within their field. The few women who do interview probably won’t manifest the kind of arrogance that the company associates with “quality”. One further wonders what Asian expatriates must think of the casual use of culturally-appropriated terms like “ninjas” and “gurus”.

It’s unassailably clear that all those super-heroic job titles are designed to appeal specifically to adolescent boys. By emphasizing those terms in job listings, a company is telling me that their managers generally think of their development teams as a bunch of immature adolescents, and that I can expect to be treated in a correspondingly condescending fashion.

Sure, perhaps I’m being a bit humorless, but that’s just insulting, and not an experience I want to subject myself to. So I don’t.

Finally, I just want to confirm that the “Overly Zealous” and “Cookie Manipulator” in the title of this post did indeed appear as titles in job listings I’ve recently seen, along with “Enthusiastic”, “Audacious”, “Visionary Game-Changer”, “Badass” and “Programmer Extraordinaire”.

And one job specially asked for an engineer “with more cowbell!” (their exclamation point). Plus, believe it or not, one company sought a “Ruby Eating Python-o-saurus Rex”. What! The! Fuck! Yeah, that really shows that you will take me, my career, and the contribution I make to your company seriously.

And final (dis-) honorable mention goes to the listing for a “Principle Systems Engineer” (sic). I’m absolutely agog imagining what duties that might involve…

Update: My followup post contains a list of the more effusive job titles I saw during the two months subsequent to this article.

The Emperor of All Maladies

I also recently plowed through Siddhartha Mukherjee’s “The Emperor of All Maladies: A Biography of Cancer”.

This is an imposing book. The text runs to 470 pages, and there are no less than 60 pages of back-notes. It’s quite a lengthy read.

On the other hand, the reviews I’d read were all effusively positive, calling it touchingly personal, citing its approachability, and even using the phrase “page-turner”.

I generally agree with that assessment. It’s very engaging and readable, deftly melding the author’s first-person experiences in his oncology residency with interesting stories of man’s early history with this disease. It goes on to add more depth to cancer’s more familiar recent narrative and solid insight into the current state of the art. Although the later chapters tend to rely a bit more on technical jargon, Mukherjee keeps things moving so that the reader doesn’t lose interest.

Part of the reason why he undertook this work was because as a neophyte oncologist, he was so buried in the tactical concerns of fighting the disease that he was unable to answer his patients’ more strategic-level questions about where we are in the overall battle and whether the increased attention of recent years has translated to improvements in prevention, treatment, and outcomes.

Throughout its long course, the book hits on most major forms of cancer—lung, breast, leukemia, Hodgkin’s Disease—and several obscure ones. For a time it follows the search for a single root cause, touching on carcinogenic chemicals like Asbestos and cigarette smoke as well as the cancers precipitated by viral infections like HPV.

But if I had to single out the primary theme of the book, however, it would have to be the hubris of physicians throughout the ages in misunderstanding and underestimating cancer, as well as overestimating their ability to cure it with a single, massive intervention.

In Rome, Claudius Galen attributed the disease to an overabundance of an unknown and unobserved liquid called “black bile”, setting our understanding of cancer on a wrong track for the following 1500 years.

Next up were the surgeons, whose simplistic answer to recurrent breast cancer was to cut deeper and deeper, until the standard preventative practice was to remove the entire breast, the lymph nodes, the muscles of the chest, the clavicle, several ribs, and part of the lung. Better to cut too much than too little, right?

As surgery began to give way to chemotherapy in the 1950s, the next group of oncologists fell for the same old “more is better” fallacy, prescribing massive doses of multiple drugs, eventually concluding that the best policy was to completely destroy the patient’s ability to generate new blood cells, then rebuild it by transplanting new stem cells (either one’s own, harvested before treatment, or transfused from a donor).

Even today, with the mapping of the human genome and gene therapy providing an historical breakthrough in cancer treatment, geneticists have once again fallen into the same mental trap as Galen did 2000 years ago, of thinking that this new technology would spell the end of cancer. Cancer is an incredibly deft, diverse, adaptive, and opportunistic disease, and its defeat is just not going to be that simple.

Despite all these unfortunate missteps, each generation of treatment has produced significant improvements in outcomes. Surgery, chemotherapy, radiation, gene therapy, targeted drugs, and combinations of these can each be the right treatment for the right patient.

And Mukherjee’s book does do a wonderful job depicting some of the fortuitous coincidences that led to the discovery of these new treatments. For example, who knew that a humble jar of Marmite was the key that unlocked the broad spectrum of chemotherapy drugs that have saved so many lives?

Aside from the knowledge that cancer was the result of uncontrolled growth, it wasn’t until the past twenty years that we actually began to understand exactly how and why cancer works at a cellular and genetic level. Before 1970, oncologists could only develop treatments by trial and error. But armed with our new understanding of what cancer is, researchers can now identify cancer’s specific biochemical vulnerabilities and start developing therapies such as Herceptin that precisely target those weaknesses.

In the end, the reader comes away from the book with a much better understanding of why cancer is so difficult to combat, and that each person’s instance of cancer is so unique that it requires an entirely individual treatment.

As a Pan-Mass Challenge rider, I was proud to discover how central Sidney Farber, the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, and the Jimmy Fund have been. They take center stage in much of Mukherjee’s narrative, as does Mass General, MIT, and the American Cancer Society.

Before I picked up the book, I saw Dr. Mukherjee at an author talk he gave at the BPL. I took the opportunity to ask him whether the recent discovery that the human genome is not identical in every cell had any implications for gene therapy.

Between his response and my readings, it was clear that it isn’t the human genome that matters so much as the characteristic modifications cancer makes to it. By designing drugs that recognize and respond to the unique cancerous fingerprint of a particular genetic alteration, it is possible to starve tumors or at least deactivate their growth. The challenge right now is to catalog those fingerprints and discover drugs that match them.

It’s probably true that you need some curiosity about cancer or medicine to get through this book. But those with sufficient interest will find it informative, entertaining, and very readable.

Is it hypocritical for newspapers to tout themselves as defenders of the English language while simultaneously butchering it whenever it is convenient?

Here’s a selection of recent headlines from the Boston Globe. You’ll note the grammatically egregious use of “slay” as a noun and/or adjective, rather than the proper nominal/gerund form, “slaying”.

IN SLAY CASE, NYC POLICE SEEK CLUES AT BAR SITE
SLAY VICTIM, 24, MOURNED IN BOSTON
‘SCHOOL CAME FIRST’ FOR NYC SLAY VICTIM, 24
OFFICIALS POINT TO SLAY CASE SUCCESSES
HUNDREDS PAY TRIBUTE TO SLAY VICTIM
GAS STATIONS ARE A FOCUS IN SLAY PROBE
PROSECUTORS SAY OTHER VICTIMS POSSIBLE IN N.H. SLAY CASE
BAIL SOUGHT IN 33-YEAR-OLD SLAY CASE
REWARD MONEY OFFERED IN PROBE OF NYC SLAY CASE
JUSTICE WILL PREVAIL IN THE HOPKINTON DOUBLE-SLAY CASE, VICTIMS’ KIN SAY
SLAY CASE MYSTIFIES A MAINE RETREAT
WEAPON FIGURES IN SLAY TRIAL
JURY SELECTED FOR TRIAL IN ’03 SLAY CASE
DEATH PENALTY RULED OUT IN GANG SLAY CASE
BAIL STAYED FOR ACCUSED IN TRURO SLAY CASE
SLAY CHARGES DROPPED VS. HOMELESS MAN
CHARITY HONORS SLAY VICTIM’S EFFORTS
SLAY SUSPECT OUT ON BAIL
OFFICER GRANTED BAIL IN GANG SLAY CASE
SLAY VICTIM MOURNED IN NEW BEDFORD
2D SUSPECT ARRESTED IN MBTA SLAY CASE
FORMER CORRECTION OFFICER PLEADS GUILTY IN SLAY PLOT
SLAY VICTIM’S GOAT BRINGS COMFORT IN E. FALMOUTH
MAN FOUND STABBED IN DORCHESTER IS CITY’S 27TH SLAY VICTIM
DEFENSE EYES DNA IN TRURO SLAY CASE
SLAY-PLOT SUSPECT EJECTED FROM COURT
FBI SEEKS MEETINGS WITH R.I. POLICE ON SLAY SUSPECT’S ARREST
SLAY SUSPECT ARRAIGNED

So an individual can be suspected of slay, be charged with slay, and be arraigned for slay. One can plot slay, probe slay, investigate cases of slay, and try slay. And believe me, we’re all victims of slay.

Obviously, this isn’t a case of one headline requiring a tweak, nor is it the doing of one marginally literate writer. It’s a systematic practice in which the Globe’s demonstrates its inability to write headlines in coherent English.

The Globe’s presumed justification for this practice would be that it is impossible to use proper grammar in their headlines, due to space constraints. However, one of those headlines is no less than 72 characters long. If we take that as a theoretical maximum length, then not a single one of the other 27 headlines would exceed that limit if we were to add the three-character “-ing” suffix that would make “slay” grammatically correct. So what, exactly, is their justification for this wanton butchery of standard practice? Answer: there is none. It is pure and utter caprice, reinforced with the weight of bureaucratic hubris.

I pointed this out in an email to the Globe’s so-called ombudsman two years ago. “Thanks for the course correction on the use of ‘slay’ in headlines. I’ve given the headline bosses the benefit of your wisdom.” In other words, “Fuck you very much; we’ll do as we please.” Proper grammar has no place in the Boston Globe, except when it can provide some entertainment value, in which case it is conveniently relegated to their weekly “The Word” column.

Frequent topics